Tuesday, August 30, 2005

There were certainly a lot of blunders at the First American Chess Congress (New York 1857). Your job is to find the win in each case. The diagrams are presented in order of difficulty from very easy to very difficult. All of the games can be played over (along with the games from the Morphy-Thompson match-up from the start or "1/8th-finals" of the tournament) online at my Selected Games from New York 1857 (also available as a PGN file to download).

I have been looking at The Book of the First American Chess Congress by Daniel Willard Fiske (New York 1859), which you may be able to find still in the 2002 Olms Reprint edition reviewed at Chess Cafe. It is a fascinating read, and practically indispensable for anyone interested in the history of the game. After all, not only is the famous First American Chess Congress itself of historical interest, but Fiske's 563 page tournament book is filled with all of the history and lore of chess up to that point. Its first chapter, in fact, undertakes a history of chess from its origins to the present day (in 46 pages) and its ninth chapter, which is longer than the sections on the tournament, offers up “Incidents in the History of American Chess” (in 200 pages) beginning with Ben Franklin and ending with a biography of Paul Morphy. There are also numerous short pieces on various topics, including an interesting article by Lowenthal on opening theory for those spotting pawn and move (which leaves Black without his f-pawn), a section on chess problems (including all problems submitted for the puzzle tournament), an article on various methods of recording chess games (which fails to mention the wonderfully modern algebraic notation deployed by Lowenthal in his article), and considerable detail about everything that happened at the Congress itself (including the dinner speeches made before it began). Its omnibus quality alone makes it a wonderful little companion since you are always discovering little things that are new.

As something of a chess bibliophile, I was naturally interested in the section on "American Chess Bibliography" which attempts to list and describe all of the chess literature published in America from 1734-1859. One of the texts described is titled "The Elements of Chess; a treatise combining Theory and Practice, and comprising the whole of Philidor's Games, and explanatory notes, new modeled; and arranged upon an original plan" (Boston 1805) which makes the following proposal, described by Fiske: "In the appendix the editor proposes a complete revolution in the nomenclature of the game. After some remarks on the unsuitableness of the names of the pieces, he says: 'Impressed with a strong desire to see an amusement of such antiquity, of such fascinating attractions, freed from every encumbrance, the writer of these remarks proposes in the following sketch to substitute other names more expressive of the respective powers of the pieces; more suitable to the dignity of the game; more descriptive of the military character; and better adapted to our feelings as a citizens of a free republic.' He then gives a scheme of the change which he advocates, thus:

Philidor's first game is next given 'to show the effect of the new moves.' Such expressions as 'Fifth Pioneer at 36;' 'Third Pioneer takes the General;' 'Major covers the check at 52;' and 'Governor castles,' present a strange appearance to the eye of the chess-player. Nor is the feeling diminished by the perusal of such notes as this: 'You advance this Pioneer two squares to obstruct your adversary's first Colonel in his intended attack on your sixth Pioneer'" (pp. 487-488).

The games themselves are actually more interesting than I had supposed. But then again I get some enjoyment out of playing over contemporary amateur games. The Chessmetric site (http://www.chessmetrics.com/) would suggest that Morphy was rated in the 2700 range, with Louis Paulsen going from 2550 in 1857 to the 2700 range during his Post-Morphy peak in 1862-1864. But anyone who plays through these games from long ago will have a completely different impression. The best players at New York 1857 seem hardly as good as most Class A or even Class B players today, with the exception of Morphy (just master strength in my view) and Paulsen (about expert level). It is pleasant to entertain the fantasy of being transported back in time to completely destroy most of these guys, and then to give Morphy a much tougher time than any of his other opponents were able to offer. Morphy might even have been beatable by an expert player, especially considering the number of errors he made in his games. The biography by Sergeant, for example, does a good job of laying bare the Morphy myth with its scrutiny of his play. And Fritz is merciless.

Tim Krabbe has most of the games from New York 1857 in a ZIP file on his site to download. My impression is that he has all of the actual tournament games but none of the side games (including blindfold games and others) that fill the book. I have also put together a set of selected games, but you might wait to look at it until I have posted puzzle positions drawn from them.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

The game Gadgil-Mazzillo, Kenilworth Summer Tourney 2005 (which you can view online or download as PGN) was interesting in several respects, not least because of its opening. I have witnessed several games at the club that began 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?! (rather than the recommended 3...d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4). And I am never sure whether or not the players know that this line is supposed to be bad for Black--or if Black is playing it as a trap of sorts, knowing full well that the worst that can happen to him is that he will end up with a bad ending (which anyone below Master level would be hard pressed to win). What's more, the second player is very likely to be rewarded -- as in the present game -- by those who do not know the "refutation." So, as a warning to all, here is a bit of analysis on this interesting Petroff byway, which turns out to be a lot more complicated than I had supposed. In fact, if you are serious about studying this line I'd suggest you download the PGN file since it contains a few minor adjustments to my original analysis--and I'm sure that if you played around with these lines some more with Fritz you'd discover even more ideas!

The game is also interesting for its critical moment (see diagram above). Black was clearly winning--he was already a pawn up with a dominating position--but he rightly sensed that this was the moment to deliver a knock-out blow. The mistake he made can only be understood in this way: he knew a combination must exist here, and as soon as he saw the glimmer of one he played it. He chose wrong, unfortunately, and lost. Can you find the knock-out that he knew was there?

My game with Joe Demetrick (which you can view online or download as a PGN) from the Kenilworth Chess Club Summer Tournament this past Thursday was practically a mirror image of my game with Ed Selling from two weeks ago. Both Ed and Joe played the anti-Nimzovich 2.Nf3, both let me gain the edge out of the opening with a simple combination at move 10, and then both overlooked a chance to at least equalize when I screwed up later on. I think I have to work on maintaining concentration throughout the game. Too often in winning positions I lose attention and allow myself to get overwhelmed by the task of calculating at each step. Or sometimes, as in the present game, I simply get overwhelmed by the number of attractive options and spend too much time at each turn trying to choose among them, leaving myself too little time to think when the critical juncture comes. The PGN is pasted below and linked above.

The position above comes from the fascinating game Bartrina-Ghitescu, Olot 1974 (download PGN or play it over online). I came upon it in Amatzia Avni's wonderful little book "Creative Chess" (Pergamon 1991), which features many positions where the correct move or idea is highly original or even counter-intuitive. In trying to solve the puzzle, I was unable to get past Black's best defense, which Fritz confirms leads to a draw and which Avni fails to consider. But the solution to the puzzle remains White's only way to avoid getting a lost game and its originality is still quite striking. I tracked down the game to see how this position came about and I offer it here for your amusement. It is a great specimen of the Colle system.

Friday, August 26, 2005

I returned to the Kenilworth Chess Club last night after a two week absence (and a missed weekend "chess party.") Work commitments have kept me busy of late and I look forward to the start of the new semester when, ironically, my load tends to get a bit lighter.

The KCC Summer Tournament is drawing to a close. I played a game against Joe Demetrick (the KCC under-1800 champ), where I gained the advantage out of the opening (which began 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6, as almost all my games as Black begin of late) and eventually won, but not before giving him a tactical chance (which we both had miscalculated the same way) to reach an equal position. Based on my performance in this tournament, I obviously need to work most at sustaining my attention to the game at hand, especially once I've gained the edge.

There were also several other games, some of which I managed to collect, and I took some photos. I hope to post those by this weekend. Next week, Mark Kernighan will play Greg Tomkovich since they are now tied for first going into the last round and far ahead of the rest of the field.

There was a lot of conversation later in the evening. Scott Massey and I discussed his planned lecture on Moscow 1925, and we looked at Bogoljubow's tournament book which he had brought. And several people wanted to talk about my review of Michael De La Maza's "Rapid Chess Improvement" (which someone said took him longer to read than the book itself). Mark Kernighan, who used to play in Massachusettes and was an occasional visitor to the Boylston Chess Club, mentioned in passing that he was likely among De La Maza's first opponents. I looked up De La Maza's tournament history online and, sure enough, they met in his second rated event.

The Black repertoire that can follow from an early ....Nc6 is wide and varied and includes the traditional Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5), the Kevitz System or Nimzovich with ...e5 (1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5), the Two Knights Tango or Kevitz-Trajkovich (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6), the Chigorin Defense (1.d4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d5 or 2.c4 d5), the Bozo-Indian or Lundin or Mikenas or Kevitz-Trajkovich (1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5), and several others. Recent publications continue to group some of these lines under "1....Nc6," but I suggest that we return to Walter Korn's idea of calling it all the Kevitz System (Chess Review, August-September 1954) after the New York master who first experimented with these lines over 50 years ago.

I have tried to make this bibliography as complete as possible and would appreciate any additions you can recommend. I may also dig a few up in the coming weeks and will revisit this list if I do.

Books and Articles

Gary Lane. Ideas Behind the Modern Chess Openings: Black (Batsford 2005)This book has a very misleading title, since it is really a repertoire book focused on the Chigorin (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6), the ...e5 English (1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6), and the Scandinavian (1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6). The coverage features well-annotated, recent GM games and is a great introduction to the Chigorin and anti-English lines with an early ...Nc6 for Black.

Richard Palliser, Tango! A Dynamic Answer to 1.d4 (Everyman 2005)An excellent book on the Two Knight's Tango (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6) that makes significant additions to Orlov and does a better job of presenting a repetoire that is not completely focused around building up a dark-square structure around ...d6 and ...e5 but occasionally heads toward ...e6 and ...d5 structures.

Chris Ward, Unusual Queens Gambit Declined (Everyman 2002)Covers the Chigorin, the Albin, and Keres's ...Bf5 in response to 1.d4 d5 2.c4. The basic coverage of the Chigorin is solid and while none of the coverage is very much in depth it is quality stuff. Especially if you would like to experiment with the Albin (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5) as an occasional gambit alternative to the Chigorin (which you would still need to know to meet 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 etc.) then this is a must-have book.

Igor Berdichevsky, Modern Practice 1....Nc6!? (Russian Chess House 2004)An excellent repertoire book written in Informator notation and multiple languages. The basic repertoire is good, with several different variations and options. It focuses on 1.e4 and 1.d4 and after 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 it discusses both 2...d5 and 2...e5 lines. There is even coverage of the Scotch (1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.Nf3 exd4 4.Nxd4 g6!?). The book includes 331 annotated games (plus more in the notes) and 50 training positions.

Georgi Orlov, The Black Knights' Tango (Basford 1998)This book is suddenly more available in the U.S. and very much worth having before the latest edition runs out. Though Palliser's book above has absorbed much of its analysis, he often does not cover all of the lines that Orlov does and he occasionally diverges from Orlov's repertoire following 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6. See the review at Chess Cafe.

Reynaldo Vera, "The Incisive 3.Nc3 dxc4 4.d5" New in Chess Yearbook 42 (1997)This line is why some players avoid 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 and instead only play the Chigorin when White commits to 1.d4 Nc6! 2.Nf3 d5! 3.c4 Bg4 etc.

Raymond Keene and Byron Jacobs, A Complete Defense for Black (Batsford and International Chess Enterprises 1996)This is one of my favorite opening books. It has a nice historical introduction and good coverage for a repertoire book. It suggests the Chigorin and 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 lines. It also discusses 1....Nc6 against other openings. Though an older book, its coverage is surprisingly good. Should be available used and may be available somewhere, though I had trouble tracking down new copies online.

Angus Dunington, The Chigorin Queen's Gambit (Batsford 1996) Fairly good coverage but overly optimistic in its assessments for Black, in my view--especially in its analysis of 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 e5!? which was a favorite method of Weaver Adams's to transpose to the Albin.

Hugh Myers, Nimzovich Defense to 1.e4(Caissa 1995)There are many original ideas and analyses in this book, but it is a rather confusing coverage and mostly focused on 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5. It's also tough to get all of a sudden and therefore expensive where available. I don't think you need it, especially if you buy the Myers CD.

Hugh E. Myers, The Nimzovich Defense (CHESSCO 1973)A small, 87 page pamphlet that was one of the first publications to suggest that 1.e4 Nc6 was playable.

Andrew Soltis, Queen's Gambit Declined: Tchigorin Defense (Chess Digest 1972)This was one of the first American opening books on the Tchigorin alone and is still cited in other sources.

Walter Korn, "The Kevitz System," Chess Review, Part One August 1954, pp. 240-241, and Part Two September 1954, pp. 274-275.Korn attributes both the Black Knight's Tango and the Nimzovich with ...e5 to Kevitz and discusses a number of related lines.

There is also various periodical publications by Hugh Myers.

CDs, E-books, and Videos

Alexander Kalinin and Igo Berdichesky, Modern Chess Openings 1...Nc6!? (Convekta 2005)--also at USCFFrom Convekta (the people who bring us Chess Assistant and CT-ART) and featuring the same basic analysis offered in the author's book version but with many additional games. This is a great package and I have only scratched the surface of what is there. I find it a valuable supplement to the book version above, and would recommend both if you can afford it.

FM Martin Breutigam, Chigorin Defense CD from ChessBaseChessBase makes great CDs and the reviews suggest that this is no exception. I have not yet gotten around to picking this one up or I'd tell you more about it. The ad copy says: "In a small but good database with 100 entries - 7 texts and 93 sample games - the long time player in the German Bundesliga has compiled all his knowledge on the Chigorin Defence. Another database includes 54 training questions enabling the user to test his freshly acquired knowledge. Furthermore, the CD features a big database of more than 4,000 games as a reference database plus a big tree of all games."

Hugh Myers, The Nimzovich Defense Ultimate CDA very nicely organized CD with lots of games and many annotated. I do not always trust Myers's analysis, but I do trust his research and he has done an impressive job of putting these materials together. The game collections also include speed games, which I think are sometimes useful for revealing the participants' opening preparation.

Sid Pickard, The Bozo-Indian e-book download from Chess CentralThough a poorly chosen name for those who remember Bozo the Clown (model for The Simpson's "Crusty"), this looks like a good game collection. I have not yet downloaded a copy. It covers 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5 lines, which both Bogoljubov and Nimzovich tried (hence "Bozo" rather than "Bogo").

Andrew Martin, Nimzovich Defense Foxy Openings VideoThough there is something about Martin's accent that tends to put me to sleep, he presents well and is very likable on tape. The repertoire he offers focuses on lines with ...e5 for Black and he offers good suggestions and some original ideas

Web Sources

Repertoire Suggestions by IM Andrew Martin from ChessPublishing.comMartin recommends a system built around 1...Nc6! with the Black pieces. Worth reading for the PGN files alone.

Smerdon-Laird, Australia 1999 annotated by John-Paul WallaceScroll down (though all the games are great and well-annotated). Features 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 transposing into a Pirc. See also Opening Lanes #10 by Gary Lane for a discussion of this line.

Monday, August 22, 2005

I saw that Qaundoman had posted a question about how to put diagrams onto his blog. I posted a comment telling him how and realized only later that it was a bit too technical and that I basically had recommended a $40 solution when he did not want to spend a dime. I think I came up with the perfect solution for him. Best of all, it is simple and it is free. But if you are willing to spend some money, the $40 solution is still better.

3) Change the Appearance of the board to fit the colors and look you want for your diagrams (go to "Options">"Apearance" and play around with the options offered).

4) Set up your game or position -- or import a PGN file to play through -- until you reach the position you wish to diagram.

5) Now create a .jpg file showing the position as follows:5a) Choose from the top menu "Position">"Export">"as graphics"5b) A window will appear for you to give the file a name and a type and to choose the location to save it. I suggest you save it to the Desktop or to your "My Pictures" folder in "My Documents." Title it by the name of the opponents and the number move (if you intend to create more than one diagram from the game). DO NOT USE ANY SPACES OR UNUSUAL CHARACTERS IN YOUR FILE NAME. Some programs have trouble understanding spaces in file names. Then save it as .jpg rather than .bmp, since .jpg (or JPEGS) are better for the web. Bitmap images are better for text applications such as Word.5c) Once you have made your choices, press "Save"

You now have an image file of your diagram to upload to your Blog. Rather easy and totally free.

The Perfect $40 Solution

For those of you willing to spend a little money, and who would like to have a quick method of posting chess diagrams online, I recommend the wonderful SnagIt program from TechSmith. Basically, SnagIt allows you to take a picture of any size of anything you can see on your computer screen and then immediately turn it into an image file in .gif or .jpg (or practically any other) format. It is unbeatable for making quick diagrams and even saves you a step or two over Adobe's Photoshop (which is a great progam and very useful, but a lot more capaility than you need for making chess diagrams). The full version of SnagIt comes with two aditional programs that give you about the same power as any image editing program at a fraction of the cost. And you don't have to take my word for it: try the 30-day Trial version and you'll see its value, which mostly amounts to time savings.

The Possibly Free Solution (If You Already Have the Software)

If you have a computer with Microsoft Office or Corel software, you likely have some simple image editing software as well. Learn how to use this software and you can make diagrams easily enough in one of two ways:

1) If you already have Fritz 8 (which has come down a lot in price), simply set up the position you want and choose "Edit">"Copy">"Copy Position" -- then paste the position into your image editing program and save as a .jpg for the web.

2) If you have no Fritz or other chess programs and you are unwilling to try Arena, then simply access a diagram on the web at the ChessBase site or Chesslab site. Use the GUI there to set up a position. Then type "Alt"+"Prnt Scrn" to copy the screen to the clipboard. Paste into your image editor and get rid of the excess. Save as .jpg.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

I recenty noticed that the excellent Chess Variants website appears to be down and likely gone for good. Fortunately it is preserved in the Web Archive. It was never a site I visited often, so I can see why it has likely passed away. But I liked knowing that someone somewhere was collecting variants for our reference.

I have found several chess variants to be fun games to play with my wife or with young relatives from time to time, especially when chess itself would not be a fair contest. My wife is a fairly good chess player for someone who has never read a single chess book, but I can usually spot her Knight and move. In chess variants, though, we are much more evenly matched.

A variant I developed, and which I've tried a few times, I like to call “Dracula Chess.” I had intended to send the idea in to the now defunct Chess Variants site or (in one little weekend fantasy when I first drafted the notes below) try my hand at making some money from it. Since I will likely never do either, I may as well present it here in my chess blog in hopes that someone will take it up and run with it (so long as they promise to send me a free set for my own use.)

“So be it that he has gone elsewhere. Good! It has given us opportunity to cry `check' in some ways in this chess game, which we play for the stake of human souls.”--Van Helsing in Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Its Origins

After rereading Bram Stoker’s Dracula one summer not long ago, it occurred to me that it might be nice to have a Dracula-themed chess set. I searched around the web to see if someone had created one for me, but no such luck. Of course, Dracula would be the Black pieces (due to the traditional association of Black with Evil) and the main “good” characters of the novel would be the White pieces. It struck me that the main characters of the novel fit rather well into the pieces of a chessboard: for Black, Dracula would be the Queen, his coffin the King, the three evil sisters and Renfield the minor pieces; for White, Van Helsing the Queen, the four young men who assist him could be the minor pieces, and perhaps Mina the King (since it is upon her life or death that the novel hangs). Black pawns could be wolves while White pawns could be crosses. Only the character of Mina’s friend, Lucy, would be difficult to represent, since she moves from being human to vampire in the course of the novel. Perhaps she could be Black’s second Queen? In any event, the Black and White binary of the novel maps perfectly onto the grids of the traditional chessboard.

I started imagining how that would look, with both sides quite different from the standard Staunton pieces. Then it occurred to me that the idea could be taken even further if it became a chess variant where the two armies not only had a different appearance but also different powers. Was it possible to represent ideas from the novel in their moves? And how could both armies differ yet still be relatively equal in powers?

The key insight was recognizing that, within the world of the novel, the forces of good can only triumph by keeping things open, revealed, and mobile while the forces of evil seek repression and secrecy. To triumph against evil, you must act straightforwardly and create a society of social mobility. Vampires, meanwhile, thrive on static social hierarchies based on blood and they move through the world in deceitful and deceptive ways. It struck me that the moves of the Bishop and the Knight in chess, relatively equal yet very different, mimic in some ways this opposition. Bishops love open positions, Knights prefer it closed. Bishops move in straight lines, Knights move in tricky ways. Yet the two pieces are relatively equal in value (depending on the position). What would Dracula Chess be like, then, if most of the forces of evil controlled by Dracula had Knight-like movements while the forces for good had Bishop-like movements? It would make for an interesting and relatively equal but unbalanced game, with much to teach players of traditional chess about the relative value of those two pieces.

The Pieces

Here is how I imagine the pieces and their moves. Each is compared to its equivalent traditional chess piece and stands on the same square occupied by that piece on a traditional chessboard—though that is not essential, it occurs to me, and it is possible that the starting position could be altered to make the game more interesting (exactly how could only be suggested after more experience). The abbreviations (such as C for Coffin) are for recording games and are mere suggestions since they may need to be modified in practice if they prove too unwieldy.

Black Pieces (Vampires or Forces of Darkness)

Coffin (C): King: same as traditional King. Appears as Dracula’s coffin. Perhaps it would have enough room to store the Dracula figurine when he is captured or exchanged.

Dracula (D): Queen: combines the moves of Rook and Knight. Appears as Dracula. The idea is that when Dracula is removed from the board he can be imagined to be in his coffin, ready to reappear should a pawn be promoted.

Second Queen (L): should there appear a second Queen for Black, it would take the form of Mina’s friend, Lucy, as “the Bloufer lady.”

King’s Bishop (R): Appears as Renfield. Moves as a Knight but can also move one square at a time diagonally in any direction. I’m not certain that this added move is absolutely necessary, but it does correspond well to Renfield’s struggles to remain human (he represents a bridge between evil and good – Knight and Bishop). It also fits his unique position as Dracula’s right-hand man and assistant. He might be shown with insects and spiders crawling on him.

Queen’s Bishop and Knights: All move as Knights and take the form of the three evil sisters. One sister might be made relatively unique so that she could be distinguished as a Bishop for people who want to use the set to play traditional chess.

Rooks (T): same as traditional chess, taking the form of a Transylvanian tower.

Pawns: Same as traditional pawns, taking the form of either Wolves or Bats. I think Wolves is more in keeping with the novel. But those raised on the Hollywood film versions may find Bats more appealing. They could promote to a Rook, to a full-fledged Vampire (Dracula or his lover), or to the evil sisters (Knight). They could also promote to Renfield, but only if he has been removed from the board.

Second Queen: if Van Helsing is removed from the board, he should be replaced upon the creation of a new Queen. In those rare instances when a second Queen is called for, it might be a figure composed of all the things that vampires hate, built around a large cross, the sun behind it, and garlic wrapped around the foot of it.

Bishops and Knights (JH, JS, QM, and AH): Jonathan Harker (Queen’s Bishop), Dr. John Seward (King’s Bishop), Quincey Morris (King’s Knight), Arthur Holmwood (Queen’s Knight). All move as Bishops. Each piece could have a unique masculine form, with emphasis on the Texas cowboy figure of Quincey, the lab-coated garb of Dr. Seward, the middle-class clerk’s suit of Harker and the facier upper-class tuxedo of Holmwood.

Rooks (T): same as traditional Rooks, but taking the shape of church steeples.

Pawns: Crosses, same as traditional pawns with same traditional powers of promotion.

Other Rules and Suggestions

Black moves first. After all, the forces of good are always reactive. Evil always moves first.

The board might be white and red or black and red in keeping with the theme of blood in the novel.

Comments on the MovesI think the advantage of the first move combined with Renfield’s additional power of moving one square diagonally (up to four more squares of mobility than a traditional Knight) would be sufficient to compensate for the latent power of White’s four Bishops. The difference of the Queens—one moving as Bishop and Rook the other as Knight and Rook—seems relatively insignificant, and some have claimed that pieces with these different powers are fully equivalent. But I would probably prefer to have the traditional Queen’s mobility, especially in the ending, so that also seems to justify Black having the first move and a piece with additional powers as compensation.

The four Bishops make a powerful force if well coordinated. I can imagine a triple-battery of two Bishops and the Queen along the long diagonal, for example. So Black does need to have some advantage to make up for that.

Renfield meanwhile would be more powerful in the ending and his powers make some endings more fair. For example, Black would be able to checkmate with Dracula, Renfield, and one evil sister against lone Mina, but in traditional chess two Knights and a King cannot normally checkmate a lone King (except in some positions where the weaker side has an additional pawn).

Suggested MarketingThough I have found that the game can be played using pieces from two combined chess sets, with some marker on Renfield to distinguish him from a normal Knight, it would be nice to develop the Dracula-themed set as a mass-market item to make the game more enjoyable. I think it could be modestly successful, especially since the pieces could be used to play traditional chess as well. The story of Dracula also maps well onto the story of post-9/11 terrorism, especially given its West vs. East cultural backdrop, so I think it even has a chance to capture the zeitgeist.

There have been some other games with a Dracula theme. There has even been a chess set with Universal Studios monsters (i.e.: Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy) arrayed against each other in a rather unimaginative battle of the nightmares, sort of like what Tim Harding was trying to conjure when he named 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 etc. the “Frankenstein Dracula Variation of the Vienna.” There was also once a game called “The Fury of Dracula” which was based on Stoker’s novel, but it has nothing to do with chess.

As an aside, one chess variant that conjures with these themes and which I’d especially like to try is Knightmare Chess, where cards that are dawn by both players (and which they can exercise at any turn) introduce additional powers to the pieces in traditional chess.

But the “Dracula Chess” I imagine is very different from these. Perhaps it should be called “Bram Stoker’s Dracula Chess,” though that combination of words might have been copyrighted by the producers of Francis Ford Coppola’s film version. Maybe they would like to pick up the idea an craft pieces after the characters as portrayed in their film?

The Bram Stoker’s Dracula set might be made in hard plastic and come with rules for both traditional and Dracula chess (with an expanded version of the rules I’ve sketched here, offering an interpretive explanation of the game), a copy of the novel (now out of copyright—the cover could depict all the main characters arrayed against each other), the pieces, and a folding black and red board. It would also be possible to have a computer version of the game.

My own limited experience with the game suggests that it is quite playable and perhaps even more complicated than Chess itself in some ways. The game also shares aspects with the perfectly playable variants “Chess with Different Armies,” “Almost Chess” and “Augmented Knights,” but it is not very similar to these games (as they were described on the defunct Chess Variants site).

If you give it a try, let me know what you think. And if you want to try it as a profit venture, let me know. I’m willing to sell any rights I may have at a very reasonable rate. I’d even help write the marketing copy.

Meanwhile, I suggest that if you like to read and play chess, and if you are artistically inclined, you consider inventing a themed chess set or chess variant (or both) to go with your own favorite novel. But to do so you must free your mind from the traditions of themed chess sets. You don't need to elevate an unimportant female character and make her the Queen (as I've often seen with Sherlock Holmes themed sets, where his cleaning lady becomes the most important piece). How about Moby Dick, for instance? The Whale and other sea creatures would be White, of course... Perhaps the whale's Head would be the Queen and his Tail the King... Captain Ahab would be the Black Queen. The ship is the Black King. Harpooners (including Queequeg) as the minor pieces. Ishmael just a lowly pawn... I'll let you imagine the rest....

I cannot help noting the difference between the non-existent coverage of the nearly concurrent U.S. Open and the extensive coverage that the Continental Open received both online and in the Spanish-language press. The most important lesson in all this is simple: you need a website with news and information about your tournament, and you need to publish the games in a timely manner if you are even going to get mentioned in the news. I still have not found U.S. Open games anywhere, except for a few amateur games that have made it onto blogs:http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/chess/

I am tempted to speculate that the USCF purposely withheld publishing the games in order to preserve their news value when published in Chess Life a month from now. I only suggest this idea because it is the only one I can think of where the USCF would actually have a rationale for not getting more news out about the event....

Monday, August 15, 2005

You can find pictures and the basic facts at the US Open website. Too bad there is no official site with games and extra coverage. For a large event with such a rich legacy not to have a website is a shame. But, then again, it was brought to you by the USCF--the same folks who brought you the new USCF website. Without the website, though, you really have no news coverage to speak of... Another missed opportunity for US Chess.

Here's the scoop: Larry Christiansen (who chose the shorter schedule, which merged with the traditional) led the US Open going into the final round, with Benjamin and Milov close behind. But victories by Benjamin (versus Yermolinsky) and Milov (versus Christiansen) left them tied for first with 8/9. You can find the complete list of final standings online.

Seriously, though, even the old website was no great piece of work. I think the failure at the USCF is no different from the failure at many other organizations: they simply are not devoting enough resources to it because they underestimate the importance (and the potential) of the web. When they finally hire someone with some skill to redesign the site, I hope they will move to more dynamic and less static content--complete with a blog from the president and a way to access current tournament results right off the main page--so that they make their site something you might visit from time to time rather than one you simply use to accomplish bureaucratic tasks (like renewing your membership or checking on your rating). They obviously have a good database back-end. They should do more to manage their content and make the current content more available to visitors.

I had also read quite a few reviews, including a skeptical one by Randy Bauer and a positive one by Hanon Russell. And I've been reading lots and lots of chess blogs by his followers.

Reading the book was a bit of an afterthought and it took me little more than an hour or two between weeding and watering my garden this morning. I have to say that being reminded of the basic premises of the de la Maza method has definitely inspired me, though I would not say it has made me a "believer." In fact, it left me somewhat a skeptic--though at the same time a skeptic who is much more enthusiastic about studying chess problems!

While I would agree with many of the basic premises of the book and recommend some of its ideas to developing players, I do not think I'd much recommend the book. For one thing, the book itself, like most books really, is just a lot of padding (and often poorly developed padding with language drawn from the genre of infomercials) layered onto the original idea--to the point, in this case, where it risks obscuring some of its best insights. Second, it is really the basic insight itself that is most valuable, in my view, and not de la Maza's specific program.

Basically, de la Maza tells us (as many have said before--as he himself reminds us) that all beginners and Class players could benefit enormously from a focused program of chess study that emphasized most of all tactics and board vision. The precise program he lays out is then described (in only a bit more detail than in the above-mentioned articles and reviews), and it involves repetitive tactical exercises of increasing difficulty (similar to athletic exercises, such as a pianist's fingering or the practice that a good golfer would use to hone his putting game). It also involves exercises to help you more fully grasp the whole board and the movement of pieces on the board, in much the way that Bruce Alberston's under-appreciated "Chess Mazes" attempts to do.

In reading the book, I developed some major reservations about the "De la Maza Method." On the one hand, I absolutely agree with de la Maza's very important insight that tactical study above all will help lower-rated players reach expert level. Of that there can be no question. But on the other hand, I think the Method falls way short of what you'd expect from a programmed course and even introduces some bad habits and notions.

My chief reservations about the Method can be summed up by two issues: first, that it suggests you need not study anything but tactics (including the openings beyond the most basic) and, second, that it discourages critical consciousness by, for example, treating the computer interpretation of chess positions as gospel. In both cases I am not completely critical of De la Maza, because I think he is right to place an emphasis on tactics and to recommend the use of computers and other methods of measuring progress in concrete, mathematical terms. But there is a point at which a basically good premise can become bad dogma, especially if it is presented without caveats and followed uncritically.

While I'm glad for a book that truthfully tells lower-rated players that openings alone are not going to cure what ails them (as many opening books at least implicitly claim and as GM Alex Yermolinsky, for one, has strongly railed against), I think the author is wrong to suggest that opening study will not have a very significant and speedy impact on performance. There can be no question that knowing at least one basic opening system as White and two as Black can make an enormous ratings difference when combined with tactical study and at least some knowledge of other aspects of the game. I can honestly say, for example, that in well over half of my games things were decided in the opening stages. And when I was a Class player, I think the number was even higher. While I think it is foolish for players to study "opening traps" (except as an introduction to tactics) or many different tricky openings or to think that memorizing opening lines alone is going to make the difference, I do think you need to know your basic repertoire in depth--as far beyond the level offered by various repertoire books as you can go--if you are going to create situations for yourself where your tactical preparation can prove itself useful. At the very least, you should study some online opening analysis and follow it up with some review of online games in your openings.

Another way of criticizing the "De la Maza Method" would be to say that it is too narrow. There is no question that de la Maza is correct that tactics are supreme and any unrefuted opening (and even a few refuted ones) are playable below 2000-level. But tactics alone are not going to take you very far if you are fighting to survive on move 10. There are definitely things that developing players need not study, and that includes arcane middlegame knowledge (such as "the minority attack") and even most endgames beyond the most basic K+P and R+K+P (especially with the advent of faster rated time controls). But opening knowledge and some other basics can pave the way to tactical success. What's more, you really need to start developing combinative thinking skills and a recognition of more complex strategic motifs to help organize your basic tactical knowledge. In a sense, de la Maza is suggesting you just study addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but these are really only the building blocks of more complex math.

Another well-rounded approach to chess study for amateurs is mentioned by Bauer in his review. It was laid out in an article by the late Ken Smith that he used to send to people who purchased through Chess Digest, and which was later published at his now-defunct company's now-defunct website. It is still available at the web archive and worth a look.

The main difference between Smith's course and the "De la Maza Method" is that Smith emphasizes opening knowledge and gambit play. He does not put as much emphasis on tactical exercises as de la Maza, but I think that's because he assumes he is writing to a Class player who has already studied tactics to some extent. Tactics are, however, central to his basic four-part program, which he lays out as follows:

"(1) Keep emphasizing 'tactics'. This part of chess will overcome a bad opening, a poor middle­game and lack of endgame knowledge. Only until you reach 'Expert' can you stop devouring everything on combinations and tactics. You put fear into your opponent when you are known as not letting anyone escape.

(2) Every chess book should be saved and gone over a second time. There was no consensus of how much time between readings. Only that you be at a different level of strength. There must be a balance between this study and play.

(3) Be exposed to different authors -- even on the same subject -- even on the same variation of an opening.

(4) Master a complete White opening system and a complete Black defensive system. It does not matter what they are---a complete simple one is better than an incomplete superior one."

I like Smith's basic idea and I'd simply add a few to his list to make the most well-rounded program possible:

(5) Study tactics and do exercises to improve your board vision at every opportunity (on the train, in the bathroom, on your lunch break, or pausing between tasks at work). If you have time to devote to a program of study using a chess program such as CT-ART, more power to you. But don't let the best be the enemy of the good. Any and all tactical study is beneficial and exercise of any sort is good for you.

(6) Play over as many games as you can in your favorite openings to get a feel for the deeper positions that arise. It's best if you do this with a computer database using a computer program like Fritz (just to know when mistakes are being made). The key, though, is to develop a good sense of patterns and ideas in your lines well into the middlegame so quantity can be as useful as quality. Simply looking at games at online databases such as ChessLab or ChessBase is a good start.

(7) Play blitz or speed chess (at ICC for example) only with a view toward cementing your opening knowledge and learning something about typical middlegames and endings that might arise from your openings. Nothing beats experience for cementing the lessons of study, but it cannot substitute for study or for serious play.

(8) Read a few classic books on the middlegame and ending and maybe a book or two on chess history. Be a literate chess player--it will help you at the board and socially. At the very least, if you want to improve your practical results most of all, read Nunn's "Secrets of Practical Chess" and Yermolinsky's "The Road to Chess Improvement." And to help your historical consciousness, at least read "The Development of Chess Style."

(9) Study very closely (and repeatedly over time) at least three books of well-annotated games: one from a major tournament, one from your favorite player, and one that covers a wide range of themes. You can't go wrong, for example, with Bronstein's "Zurich 1953" (also for download), Botvinnik's "100 Selected Games," and Nunn's "Understanding Chess Move by Move." You could substitute many others. Any World Champion (FIDE or pre-FIDE) or major contender would do as a player, for instance, and there have been many great tournaments and tournament books. Whatever you find suited to your style or level of knowledge will work best, but I don't think I'd recommend doing many more than three at first. The key is to look at these games in depth until you have them memorized. A national master I know still goes over Chernev's classic "Most Instructive Games Ever Played," for example, and it clearly has not hurt him to do so. One thing I'd say about choosing a book: sometimes it's a good idea to read something that's just a bit beyond you at the moment, because once you master it through repetitive study over time you will have made progress.

(10) Play as much serious chess as possible against stronger opponents and analyze your games afterward, first with your opponent (if he or she is willing) and then with the aid of a coach and/or a chess computer. But do not take everything any of them say as gospel.

I should probably add (11) that it can only help you to stay physically in shape by exercising, watching your diet, and avoiding smoking or other bad habits. I hope your mom told you that. I will say, though, that physical fitness is probably what makes the biggest difference over the course of a long tournament or even an intensive three-day event. There is no use studying your tactics if you don't get your rest and eat your Wheaties before Round 5.

I think many experienced players would recognize these additions as not original with me, and anyone would say these are all fairly common and good suggestions that it would never hurt to follow. I'm sure that even de la Maza follows them to some extent, though you'd never know it from his book. And that's precisely the problem. What de la Maza is pitching seems less like a good study plan for a well-rounded chess player than a rather dogmatic religion intended to create speedy self-transformation through a form of intensive prayer. I have no doubt that it will increase performance, but I'm not sure it will make you a better player--let alone a better person. The ten or eleven suggestions above would do both.

In presenting his program as something to do rather than to think about, he is not helping to further a critical consciousness. He may, ultimately, be helping some players to greater success over the board. But he is not helping people escape the sort of autistic repetition to which unhealthy-minded chessplayers are too often prone. Nor will he help you to make the lessons learned from chess useful for life, unless you are preparing to become some sort of religious fanatic. The "Seven Circles" will not bring you closer to God. More likely, they will make it harder to do your laundry or have a social life.

I actually did like one idea from the book, which was to chart your performance mathematically. You can do that in a number of ways, most obviously by keeping track of your performance rating in tournaments. There are others, such as when solving puzzles: one of the appeals of the CT-ART program he recommends (as the followers of de la Maza in the blogosphere will tell you) is that it allows you to keep strict percentages of problems solved to measure your increased performance over time. These are good ideas, on the model of other forms of athletic training. After all, what aspiring track star would not keep strict track of his times in races, down to the nanosecond? I even think it is interesting to use a computer program, such as Fritz, to track the evaluation swings in one of your games to see where the critical moments were that you need to focus on to improve. But I also think there is a limit to how far this sort of math can take you, and believing in numbers too much is dangerous.

It's especially dangerous to believe in the evaluations offered by your computer program, or to think that what it says is right, or to believe that it might pinpoint exactly where you went wrong. To give an obvious example: due to the horizon effect, a computer might not see that something you did at move 10 is wrong until move 15, so its evaluation will not dip until 5 moves after the critical juncture, which could be quite misleading for a developing player.

What's more, his suggestions for "How to Think" strike me as a very primitive version of a computer evaluation function. At each move he suggests you seek to:"1) Improve the mobility of your pieces" (a typical computer evaluation gauge)"2) Prevent the opponent from castling" (ok, no problem there)."3) Trade off pawns" (I don't get that one, except that it creates an open position where you are more likely to have tactical solutions)."4) Keep the queen on the board" (obviously in order to create more tactical piece play).

And that's it. If you play like that you may get more opportunities for tactical shots should your opponent blunder, but you will not be playing good chess. The sample game of his that he gives on pages 63-71 proves my point. It is completely incoherent and reminds me of early computer games.

My overall point is that de la Maza may give you some tools to improve your rating, but, as even he admits, these tools can only take you so far. Meanwhile, his methods will encourage you to play less like a person and more like a machine, for both good and ill. Like a chess computer, you may see more tactical shots than your opponent and therefore be able to hit him hard when he makes a tactical mistake. But you will be completely reliant upon your opponent to make a tactical error in order to win. Once you start playing better opponents (or computers for that matter) you will have no clue what the hell is going on. And because you will never have the accuracy nor the brute-force calculating ability of a modern computer, no matter how hard you work at the Seven Circles, you will never be able to perform above the level of a 10 Mb machine running a 1000-positions per hour search function with a weak evaluation rubric.

Think about it. Do you really want to train to play like an old chess computer? Or do you want to play good chess and use chess as one way to become a better human being?

I can sum up the best lessons of de la Maza in a few words: study your tactics as often as you can and keep track of your performance. But if you really want to be a good chess player, you should read some books--and good, well-written chess books with some real substance and ideas. At the very least they will make you a more literate and well-rounded person.

In writing the notes to my game with Ed Selling from Thursday night, I could not avoid recognizing how important relatively simple two- to three-move tactics were at every critical moment. In fact, if Ed had simply paused to do a little careful three-move calculating at move 33 rather than trying to blitz a draw out of me, he would likely have gotten me to take a perpetual check. There is no question that Michael de la Maza is right: if you miss fewer three-move tactics, your performance will go up enormously. It probably helps, also, to manage the clock more effectively, since he played too fast (15 minutes total for the game while trying to blitz me into time trouble) and I played too slow (59 minutes and 50 seconds for the game at Game 60).

My annotations were inspired by my recent reading of "Rapid Chess Improvement," about which I will post something later. I have also used the game as an opportunity to think about my opening a bit since I tried out an interesting novelty while repeating a line that I had played before in the KCC Club Championship.